< December 17	December 19 >

December 18

Category:Compositions by key

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. This should not stop anyone from removing an article from a category if it is placed in it inappropriately. delldot ∇. 08:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion.

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm sure most songs can be in any key. Look at different arrangements of "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star". Are all arrangements of this song in the same key?? No. How would we classify this song?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete What with equal temperament the key of most pieces is not that important. I would certainly not classify pieces by key when that wasn't part of the title. We do have lists of symphonies by key already. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment The more I think about this, the more I think it is something of a WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES category. The pieces most readily categorized under this system are those for which the key signature forms part of the name, but after that it gets harder to assign a definite key to pieces. Messiah starts in E minor and ends in D major, and visits a lot of other key signatures along the way; Das Rheingold famously starts in E flat major, but Wagner equally famously could not be confined to a single key for extended periods. The reasons why pieces are in different keys vary widely anyway. What good does it do to have this structure when only a restricted set of classical compositions which happen to use this naming convention can be definitively assigned a place in it? Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination is a red herring - Twinkle Twinkle Little Star is not in the category, the key is not in the article. Not all compositions will fall in this category tree. Better example Symphony in C major (Wagner), the clue is in the title. Tim! (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What a pity this was nominated so soon. I disagree. The vast majority of songs and classical compositions were originally written in a given key. A number of jazz standards have been covered in numerous keys, true, but even Misty, which is commonly played on the piano in E flat major was originally written and recorded in G so would be in G major. \naturally C major could potentially be huge but I don't see that as a valid reason. I find these categories extremely useful as a musician to finding pieces in a key, especially the B flat minor one, my favourite key. I can't see how this would damage wikipedia or affect it has a resource, quite the opposite. As long as we stick to original key of recordings. Tim has done a wonderful job so far in categorizing some of them and given time I think this will prove very useful, especially for musicians wanting to develop their repertoire in a given key, this would be an excellent way of accessing our articles on them. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree. This isn't for everything, but especially for classical music it's remarkably useful. And the lists aren't at all comprehensive, in my experience. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ser Amantio di Nicolao and Dr. Blofeld. In fact, only a very few classical compositions are either atonal or have a controversial/ambiguous key (i.e. Beethoven's Kreutzer Sonata or Mendelssohn's 5th Symphony). GotR ^Talk 21:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful for many pieces of classical music, several defined by the purposeful selection of key, for example Mass in B minor, Great Mass in C minor, Beethoven's piano sonatas, to name a few. Consider how populated some cats are already, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Category:Compositions by original key etc. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent rationale's above, but even without them, classical compositions were still written in ONE key originally, and to a musician, a category based on that key makes all the sense in the world. Some of our readers are musicians, by the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some compositions are, and some aren't. I haven't been through every movement of the Dvorak Requiem, for instance, but it's not that likely that an extended choral piece is all in one key. I'd be more inclined to keep this if I had confidence that only works designated as being in a single key were to be so categorized. Mangoe (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most complex works are in more than one key as an means of architecture, for example the Mass in B minor, but it still makes sense to list it under B-minor. We might differentiate even more, for example the last movement alla turca of Mozart's Sonata is in A minor, whereas the Sonata begins in A major. Beethoven's Fifth begins in C minor, but ends in C major. The Bach cantatas intentionally use different keys, but it makes sense to list the key (setting the mood) of the opening movement, as in BWV 40. ("Twinkle, twinkle" doesn't need the category at all, easy.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the Bach arguments to others, not being Baroquen myself. (Ha.) I will say only that I added the category to the "B-Minor Mass" because of its title. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful way of classifying classical music. Perhaps some guidelines for use could be noted on the category page if songs like "Twinkle, Twinkle" become a problem. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is little different than locations by country or any one of a number of other category trees. - jc37 06:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that works that are known by their key in the title could be categorised like this. However, it is not always as clear cut as Tim! and Guerrilla of the Ranmin imply. Are these keys part of the composer's title, or are they an analytical convenience added by later commentators and/or scholars? If the title is not the composer's, a) how do we know, b) how do we reference it? Many classical pieces (including those whose key is commonly stated in the title) do have ambiguous key if you look closer. Beethoven's 5th is in C minor, but I think it is safe to say it ends as firmly in C major as it is possible to be. Mendelssohn's 4th is in A major, and yet the last movement is unambiguously and unremittingly in the minor. What key is Nielsen's 3rd in? Mahler's 9th? Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony No. 1? -- all tonal works. Do we put Enigma Variations in G minor or G major? Or do we add a "key of G" category, or is Enigma Variations not in the frame at all, and we come up with criteria, by consensus, that excludes such compositions? How and why do we exclude them? I simply bring to your attention that the existence of these categories implies an extra maintenance overhead for all of us, as we decide how it all works, and then watch that someone doesn't slip through their own original theory about which key a work is in. I see this as too much work, and therefore I am in serious doubt about the utility of these categories. I am putting these thoughts forward for discussion without implying they are sufficient to warrant deletion of the category. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the usefulness of the cat even more so for including pieces that don't carry the key in the title, for example Agnus Dei (Barber) in B-flat minor. If in doubt, just no key cat. Pieces don't have to be in the cats, so maintenance is only for those interested, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barber's Agnus Dei being in B flat minor does not seem to me like one of its WP:DEFINING characteristics, but that's just my opinion. (And I can't immediately think of a use case where a user needing to look for pieces in B flat minor would find listing Agnus Dei (Barber) useful, but this would perhaps be argument from lack of imagination.) However, it helpfully clarifies that this would be overcategorisation for pieces like Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star mentioned by other contributors previously. But anyway, just to be clear, it seems the proposal is that any piece of music is a candidate for one of these categories, provided the original key is a defining characteristic, and is documented in the article (referenced where necessary, obviously). By this criterion, Enigma variations and my other examples of tonal works with ambiguous key would not be in the category. Yes, I'm content with that, thank you. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a choral singer: to me, Barber's Agnus Dei being in B-flat minor does indeed seem like one of its WP:DEFINING characteristics. Key signature is tremendously important in determining the identity of a piece. I have no problem with excluding pop songs from these categories. That being said, I would tend to avoid including multi-movement works in these categories, as they can exist in multiple keys over multiple movements. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this is a ridiculous category. One will have hundreds of pieces of music and they will be difficult to navigate. What is one supposed to do with such a list? What about Lieder which is frequently transposed - the assigned key is only for the original version. Is the next category to create "Works of Music in Three-Quarter Time"? "Works of Music that use violins"? My feeling is that thinking up these categories is a poor substitute for actually doing the work to create new articles (i.e. it's a lazy way to think one is doing something productive when one is just fooling oneself). -- kosboot (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"What is one supposed to do with such a list?" - If some people are helped by seeing pieces together they didn't see in that context - but not you - why not have it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that some people studying music would find it useful to access other pieces by the same or other composers in a given key. Yes the potential range is broad, but we have categories on wikipedia with thousands of articles. If people didn't find those useful even in a large size they'd all be deleted. You could argue most categories on wikipedia are not necessary. What about Category:Gay actors or Category:Lesbian writers? Would the majority really feel compelled to browse authors simply because of their sexuality? I wouldn't but I'm sure some people would who are interested in LGBT studies. That's the whole point of them that some editors will find them useful to browse. The belief that nobody would find them useful is grossly underestimating how much traffic and diversity of interests wikipedia attracts. I'm speaking as a passionate musician with interests in both guitar and piano that I would find these categories extremely useful in surveying pieces in a given key to listen to and compare and try to learn some of them. If I'm working on my knowledge of progressions in a given key, to be able to access other articles and find the pieces to listen to on youtube really helps me as a resource. In fact as we speak I am listening to a piece found in one of the categories, this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My thoughts pretty, much echo Kosboot's. What's the point of this in the first place? And a lot of pieces may be in a certain key but to find out you actually have to look at the music because the title doesn't mention it, even on recordings. And what about collections -- would you really add four categories to The Four Seasons (Vivaldi)? All 24 to Preludes (Chopin)? And RobertG's point above also has some merit -- it's true that a large number of works are assigned a key based on the first movement, but it seems a bit off to categorize those works as being in one key and not others. Even getting away from the fact that most music has their tonal centers shift within movements, especially starting in the 19th century, it's also true many works have more time in other keys than that of the first movement. So as RobertG says, what's the 'utility' of this? I think the big issue is the holes that would be necessary because of the way we organize WP (such as with the aforementioned Chopin preludes) cause these to be much less useful. All this is pretty much just fluff compared to the REAL topic at hand though -- are keys really "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic" (to quote WP:CAT)? For some pieces, maybe yes, but as noted above a lot of music it's not. I'm listening to The Wand of Youth right now, which is a pair of suites. Good luck finding somewhere that keys are mentioned for the piece. Yet, it's 100% tonal music with very clear keys for each individual movement. So why should WP go categorizing some pieces but not all? How are they a defining characteristic of a symphony but not a suite? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Why should WP categorize ...?" Wo is WP? We are. If enough people find a category useful, why not have it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Melodia for that reminder. The reason why I said above that the category is useless is that it will create lists of (much) more than 200 articles, compounded by the problem that article tiles (not composer/titles) will be the sorting criteria. It might be interesting to know what pieces fall into particular keys - but is it worth putting that into an encyclopedia? The other problem (mentioned above) concerns works that are not easily classified in single key. Chopin's Fantasie op. 49 is often considered in F minor - but after the initial section you never have F minor again and the work ends in A flat major; similarly for Schubert's song Ganymed. What are the implications for such a list when works do not appear on it? Does that mean that someone hasn't made a category, or does it mean that the work can not be defined by categories? -- kosboot (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kosboot put it very well. I suspect that some of the people putting up this category may not be aware of how many works of classical music there are -- it probably goes well into the 10,000's at least, and eventually (assuming WP survives and prospers) quite a few of these pieces are going to have their own articles. It is incredibly useless to have a gigantic category saying what pieces are in C major. WP readers who want to engage in this sort of trivia game should use their search engines. Opus33 (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is incredibly useful for me to be able to access a comprehensive category of pieces in a given key. I've already used it to route out compositions in a given key that I want to find and learn. Describing these categories as trivia is about as misinterpreted of the situation as you can get. Should Category:American films be deleted because it has too many entries? Because many American films are British co-productions, so problematic, should be delete then? Sorry, your rationale for deletion is very weak. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is anyone going to read an article on some classical piece and want to navigate to see what other pieces were composed in the same key? heck no. Might as well have Category:Compositions composed in the last year of the composer's life, which by the way is more useful.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was, I went and looked what other pieces are in B-flat minor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"is anyone going to read an article on some classical piece and want to navigate to see what other pieces were composed in the same key? heck no. " Yes!!!! That was the reason the categories were created to find pieces to study in a given key.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Blofeld.146.90.110.75 (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the others above that this is overcategorisation and the utility of this tool as a navigation aid is elusive and has not been clearly articulated in this discussion. Eusebeus (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've also failed to articulate why the categories are not useful.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per the various good arguments above. Why get rid of something that works well? - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Gerda and Blofeld. Essential to find pieces which were composed in the same key, not to mention its usefulness in helping to classify classical music. -- Cassianto ^Talk 10:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. Blofeld and Ser Amantio di Nicolao. It seems very useful for the classifying of classical music. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gerda and Dr. B. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Compositions by tonality—this then enables multi-movement works to be categorised into these categories as well as single-movement works. In a multi-movement work such as a sonata or symphony the various keys used across the movements are related to the key of the first movement. So they can be regarded as being in a single tonality. However, works such as Oratorios and Operas should not be categorised by key/tonality as it is rare that these were composed around a single key (a whole evening of D tonality would be extremely monotonous). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Classical musical works typically have a home key, and they are often known by the key. Romantic and modern works may be less attached to a key. The nom's example is a good case of something that ought not to be in the category at all. I assume that it is a traditional tune, for which there is not and never was a definitive version. Similarly longer works without a clear home key should be excluded. No doubt a headnote can be added to deal with this issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptical comment: I was wondering about this the other day, and am thus glad to find this discussion. My scepticism has to do with determining whether a work has a single key. Consider Bach's B minor Mass, Beethoven's Op. 77, or Mahler's comment on the "key" of his 5th Symphony. If a reasonable guideline regarding ambiguous cases is established, then I oppose deletion. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If its Bach's B Minor mass I'd put it in B minor. Anything which begins in B minor or has that in the title I'd categorize as such.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's like calling Glenn Gould a music critic just because he described himself as one, or declaring Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji Spanish-Sicilian. The article Symphony No. 5 (Mahler) contains the following:

"The symphony is sometimes described as being in the key of C♯ minor since the first movement is in this key (the finale, however, is in D).<ref>"Gustav Mahler", in ''New Grove'', Macmillan, 1980</ref> Mahler objected to the label: 'From the order of the movements (where the usual first movement now comes second) it is difficult to speak of a key for the "whole Symphony", and to avoid misunderstandings the key should best be omitted.'<ref>Letter to ''Peters Music Publishers'' dated July 23, 1904. Cited after: http://www.gustav-mahler.org/gesamtausgabe/berichte/cr5-f.cfm</ref>

Chopin's Ballade No. 4 is an example of the very opening and title contradicting one another. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Infantry type

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Infantry and delete. Dana boomer (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Infantry type to Category:Infantry types

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per category's content, there are several types, not only one. Brandmeister^talk 13:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedily rename for pluralization. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename per C2A. - jc37 06:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Infantry. 'Type' is not a helpful sub-category. There are already some duplications. Ephebi (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ephebi. His target is not so heavily pop[ulated as to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge seems to be the logical move here, as mentioned above...but all of this category's contents are already in Category:Infantry, therefore a merge is unneeded. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since all contents are already in the logical choice for a merger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials in Africa

The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Burials in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. By request, nominated on behalf of User:Alan Liefting: "per WP:SMALLCAT, i.e. not part of a series and only two subcategories". There is no Category:Burials by continent. The subcategories are already categorized in Category:Burials by country, so no merge is necessary. I agree with the proposal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't think we've ever divided up "by country" cats according to continent, and I don't see the need to start here. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The by country categories work, the by continent categories are not needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Assuming they are all in Category:Burials by country, this seems an unnecesary level of categorisation. However, I am not sure that even the country sub-cats are particularly useful. Most people are buried in their home country. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]